Message from @Dvir
Discord ID: 504714800371073026
Bookworm, when it comes to religion on what basis would you regard a religion as correct?
When their statements and beliefs align correctly with reality.
Would you concede that the material world is intrinsically flawed?
What religion or faith do you follow? What do you believe aligns the closest with reality?
Alright, I think I'm going to hit the hay. Feel free to send me any questions directly and I'll do my best to respond tomorrow. Good night, guys, it was nice talking to you.
Me, personally? Roman Catholicism.
Would I concede that the material world is intrinsically flawed? ...Intrinsically is the key word there. I think...no.
But there is entropy
Energy is slowly drained
There is division of forces
Have a good night, Bookworm. If you're available tomorrow it would be nice to continue this chat.
Id like to go to,church, problem is the churches here are sketchy as hell and are full off upper middle class chinese. I day this as one.
I am a Buddhist
We believe what we can see
We believe what we can prove to true
So I ended up with the conclusion that Masturbation was parts of reason why I failed as a swimmer
There are some other reasons, too, but they are all just there to make feel less guilty
Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation.
So regards to the bombs found in the DNC, does anyone else think this is an inside job? Seems awfully convenient for this to happen 2 weeks from midterms.
Alexander Soros just blamed Trump for it.
As if they knew the packages would be intercepted and reported.
It isn't a definite, but it is within the realms of plausibility at this point.
There is no low the DNC would go.
Atheism is a fundamentally flawed and weak religion.
And it is a religion
It is an ideological stance on the existence of God and the nature of reality.
It is a religion with role of refuting religion.
If you are familiar with 40k, atheism can almost be personified by the fifth Chaos God Malal.
It is flawed and weak because it is the rejection of a higher reality beyond the material. The fervent of Atheists are just as zealous and dogmatic as any other religious radical.
An atheist isn't like an agnostic who I would better describe as secularists, since they largely remove themselves from religion.
Organised atheists discussing their reasoning does not mean all atheists are organised and behave the way youre saying
No, but atheism also leaves people morally lacking.
That is an opinion, not a statement of fact
Which either leads to nihilism or another radical ideology that co-opts the place of religion
can you define atheist?
your definiton seems bit odd.
An atheist is one who rejects the existence of God and the Divine.
I would personally argue that those who lack belief in religion aren't atheists, only those who disbelieve in religion are.
I would say an atheist is someone who does not think that there is an existence of a God or Divine
you do kinda get into semantics when going into the existence of a "god" as described by monotheistic religions, specifically the omnipotent ones
if god IS all-powerful and all-knowing, then god is not sentient. you cannot think if you already know what you're about to think. such a being cannot have intent, for it's intent is literal reality.
god as both a sentient and all-powerful being is illogical.
if we define god as merely existence, then there is very little weight to worshipping such a being
im atheist.
And i dont have any other thing common with other athieists that i dont belive in god or divine.
its not religion by the definiton.
and being athiest as it self is not radical by the defenition
I would argue that a more controversial standpoint would be to be atheist but also reject the concept of evolution as fact
Many christians that I have interacted with automatically assume your atheism means you are an evolutionist
the biggest problem atheists have in the religion debate is the assumption that god does not exist. in truth, landing on such a conclusion is irrational. we do not know for certain.
but, if we take it to it's logical conclusion, all-powerful and all-knowing are mutually exclusive with sentience